👍 laanwj approved a pull request: "contrib: skip missing binaries in gen-manpages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30986#pullrequestreview-2454225450)
Code review ACK 4bbd28baf33382231f4f1dab20681c05f9915af2

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "[POC] ci: Test cross-built Windows executables on Windows natively":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31176#issuecomment-2493572333)
I think this is useful, and while it is waiting for more review (and for the existing review to be addressed), it could make sense to schedule it to run regularly in a repo. For example, in one of your repos, or in a new repo, or in an existing one like https://github.com/maflcko/b-c-nightly/ .

⚠️ rkrux opened an issue: "Add `satToBtc()` and conversely `btcToSat()` util functions in functional tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31345)
### Motivation

In [functional tests](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/test/functional), there are numerous instances of conversion code with patterns such as `/ COIN` and `* COIN` that are converting between units _satoshis_ to _BTC_.

Following details are as of the latest commit on master 2638fdb4f934be96b7c798dbac38ea5ab8a6374a.

### Patterns stats
```terminal
# satoshis to BTC conversion
➜ bitcoin git:(2638fdb4f9) ✗ git grep -n "/ COIN" -- '*.py' | wc -l
22


...

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "Fee Estimation: Ignore all transactions that are CPFP'd":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30079#discussion_r1853812830)
Quite a late reply here but I don't think I will get to this anytime soon, created an issue here for anyone else to pick up: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31345

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "util: Improve documentation and negation of args":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31212#discussion_r1853756499)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31212#discussion_r1853379963

The idea is not to add an ignored test, but to add real test coverage. For example if there is a buggy `add()` function that thinks `2 + 2 = 5`, the ideal way to fix it is to first add a test commit that asserts `add(2, 2) == 5` with a comment noting the add function is buggy. After this, a separate commit should fix the bug and update the test to assert `add(2, 2) == 4`. Advantages of this approach:

1. Clearly shows
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "util: Improve documentation and negation of args":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31212#discussion_r1853811005)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31212#discussion_r1853683566

> What's the reason for not wanting an `about` window regardless of the `-version` flag's value? Doesn't `gArgs.IsArgSet("-version")` make more sense here?

The idea is for -noversion and -version=0 to be the same as not specifying a -version argument. -version is just a binary option, it should choose between 2 behaviors, not 3

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "util: Improve documentation and negation of args":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31212#discussion_r1853779968)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31212#discussion_r1853551532

I think the idea here is just for -version to take precedence over -help if both are specified. I don't know if this is the best behavior, but I don't see a reason to change in a commit that is just trying to handle -version=0 and -noversion more sensibly.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "util: Improve documentation and negation of args":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31212#discussion_r1853807905)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31212#discussion_r1853700315

> given that checking the args is not for free (triggers locks and merges from multiple sources), maybe we could introduce a `IsArgEnabled` which gets rid of this confusing combination (e.g. where `-noconf=0` would be set and not negated, I think)

#31260 gets away from this error-prone repeated retrieval of settings by forcing the type of every setting to be declared up front, and only providing a single `Get` accesso
...

💬 l0rinc commented on issue "ci: how to run native arm job on Apple silicon?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31344#issuecomment-2493612110)
Not sure it helps, but I have tried reproducing it on my M4 Max, emulating an s390x platform (as I've done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#issuecomment-2453108430) - while it's still very (very) slow:

<details>
<summary>docker setup</summary>

```bash
brew install podman pigz
softwareupdate --install-rosetta
podman machine init
podman machine start
docker run --platform linux/s390x -it ubuntu:22.04 /bin/bash
```

</details>

```bash
apt update && apt install -y
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add multiprocess binaries to release build":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30975#issuecomment-2493614105)
Well that's nice, looks like only the ASan + LSan + UBsan job is failing.

📝 Sjors opened a pull request: "Set notifications m_tip_block in LoadChainTip()"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31346)
Ensure KernelNotifications `m_tip_block` is set even if no new block arrives.

Suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31297#issuecomment-2486457573

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "mining: add early return to waitTipChanged()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31297#issuecomment-2493619203)
See #31346.

👍 rkrux approved a pull request: "contrib: skip missing binaries in gen-manpages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30986#pullrequestreview-2454288885)
re-ACK 4bbd28baf33382231f4f1dab20681c05f9915af2

Minimal range diff.

<details>
<summary>git range-diff f080618...4bbd28b</summary>

```
1: 7060d64bf7 ! 1: 299e2220e9 gen-manpages: implement --skip-missing-binaries
@@ contrib/devtools/gen-manpages.py: BINARIES = [
+ "--skip-missing-binaries",
+ action="store_true",
+ default=False,
-+ help="skip generation for binaries that are not found",
++ help="skip generation for binaries that are no
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "Set notifications m_tip_block in LoadChainTip()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31346#discussion_r1853828160)
nit: at this point it may make more sense to just remove the `[[nodiscard]]` from `blockTip` instead

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "util: Improve documentation and negation of args":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31212#discussion_r1853836054)
I'm not against that, my concern is just that reproducing old behavior before the fix isn't very useful activity - it's a lot more useful to see that a test fails before the fix with the correct error (i.e TDD), but that's not really possible currently - unless we add something like https://github.com/spockframework/spock/blob/master/spock-core/src/main/java/spock/lang/PendingFeature.java#L13-L17 (where we invert the test, making sure it fails (that's when the test is green) and remove the annot
...

✅ Sjors closed an issue: "ci: how to run native arm job on Apple silicon?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31344)

💬 Sjors commented on issue "ci: how to run native arm job on Apple silicon?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31344#issuecomment-2493642543)
> It is not possible to run 32-bit arm binaries on a CPU that only supports 64-bit mode.

Ah, in that case it's probably pointless for a performance improvement.

> select qemu-arm in UTM. (Is there a reason why you haven't done this in the first place?)

My initial goal for that Ubuntu VM was to make Guix builds.

I could spin up a separate machine in 32 bit mode, but that seems like a world of pain on its own. Closing for now.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "util: Improve documentation and negation of args":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31212#discussion_r1853838097)
what about `-noversion=0` :p

There has to be a better way, this is so confusing :/

💬 Sjors commented on issue "ci: how to run native arm job on Apple silicon?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31344#issuecomment-2493644965)
I guess my confusion came from the use of `arm64` as the label for cirrus.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Set notifications m_tip_block in LoadChainTip()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31346#discussion_r1853843127)
Maybe, or we could do something with the return value. I'm not familiar enough with init code and kernel notifications to have a strong opinion on this. cc @ryanofsky, @TheCharlatan